Apology Strategies
Trosborg (1995: 376-83) asserts that the speech act set of apology involves a number of strategies which can be classified according to the increasing acknowledgment of responsibility under four categories as follows:
Cat. (0) Opting out
This category is given number zero since in its strategies the complainee “opts out” (i.e.) does not admit any responsibility for the offence. Hence, an apology is not realized because the sincerity condition (see 2. 4. 2. above) is not satisfied. When opting out, the complainee will choose one of the following five strategies:
0.1 Explicit denial of responsibility
In this strategy, the complainee denies that s/he has done the offence. The offender may intensify his/her innocence just like:
" I know nothing about it"
" You know that I would never do a thing like that"
0. 2 Implicit denial of responsibility
The offender may evade the responsibility by talking about a topic not connected with the situation e.g: when someone borrows his friend s pen and s/he loses it , s/he would say to the offended when s/he asks about it:
" Your dress is very beautiful "
0. 3 Justification
The speaker (offender) gives a justification to the hearer ( offended) that s/he should not be blamed e.g when your company invited you for the concert and you came late, you would say:
" There was an accident in the road that prevented me from arriving in time "
0. 4 Blaming someone else
The offender attempts to avoid the responsibility by relating the violation to a third person e.g when somebody borrowed a book from someone else and the book is cut ,s/he would say:
" My brother cut it, it was not me "
0. 5 Attacking the complainer
Occasionally, the offender attacks the offended if s/he is unable to defend him/herself e.g :
" Stop your blaming for me "
2. Evasive strategies
2.1 Minimizing the degree of offence
This strategy is relevant to the other strategies in which the offender fails to take on responsibility. Here , the offender attempts to minimize the degree of the violation. The offender may say the precondition on which the violation is built. This strategy can be subdivided as follows:
2.1.1 Minimizing :e.g, " what does that matter, that is nothing"
2.1.2 Quering precondition : e.g , " well, everybody does that what is love then?"
2.1.3 Blaming someone else
The complainee may claim another person did the offence. The difference between this strategy and blaming someone else in opting out is that the offender refers to someone else with minimizing the degree of the offence e.g :
" My friend did it , but do not worry, it is nothing "
3. Indirect apologies
3.1 Acknowledgment of responsibility
When the offender selects to take on responsibility s/he is able to perform apology explicitly or implicitly with different degree of self-blame. This strategy contains many categories which are stated below:
3.1.1 Implicit acknowledgment e.g :
" I can see your point, perhaps, I should not have done it "
3.1.2 Explicit Acknowledgment e.g:
" I ll admit, I forgot to do it "
3.1.3 Expression of lack of intent e.g :
" I did not mean to "
3.1.4 Expression of self-deficiency e.g:
" I was confused : you know I m bad at....
3.1.5 Expression of embarrassment e.g :
" I feel so bad about it
3.1.6 Explicit acceptance of the blame e.g:
" It was entirely my fault, you are right to blame me"
Similarly, Blum-Kulka et al (1993,21) say that when the speaker tries to lull the hearer, the speaker chooses to explain responsibility for the violation which needs to express threatening act for the fender and face saving act for the offended e.g:
" I m so forgetful"
" It is my fault"
3.2 Explaination or account
The offender , sometimes, attempts to improve his/her apology by an explaination of the condition. There are many sorts of mitigation which perform as indirect apology, yet there are two sorts of elaboratations which are :
3.2.1 Implicit explaination e.g:
" Such things are bound to happen, you know "
3.2.2 Explicit explaination e.g :
" Sorry, I m late, but my car broke down"
Likewise, Blum-Kulka et al (1993,21) mention that when the speaker tries to apologize, s/he tries to find an elaboration for his/her offence. This explaination should be given as an apology, yet its giving should be done according to the situation. The explaination can be general or specific e.g when someone tries to justify his/her lating:
General : " Traffic is always so heavy in the morning
Specific: " The bus was late"
4. Direct apologies
The apologizer may choose to clarify his/her apology explicitly. In this strategy, there is a small number of verbs which are used to perform this kind of apology. The verbs like " apologize" , "be sorry" can be used with first pronoun as a subject e.g " I m sorry ".This strategy contains the following categories:
4.1.1 Expression of regret : e.g " I m sorry"
4.1.2 Offer of apology : e.g " I apologize "
4.1.3 Request for forgiveness: e.g " Excuse me ; please; forgive me ; pardon me". For example:
" Excuse me, I m sorry for interrupting you, but...
Similarly, Blum-Kulka et at (1993,20) present the same strategy which they call illocutionary force indicating device (hance: IFID) with verbs like excuse , regret , sorry , apologize e.g
" I m sorry for my strange behavior"